Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Bob Blaylock]

You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business. Deal with it.

Where, in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is government authorized to compel a citizen to waive any of his Constitutional rights—including freedoms of religion, expression, conscience, and association—as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living?

And who said that a citizen is compelled to waive his constitutional right?

Freedom of expression, (which necessarily means freedom not to express that which I find disagreeable), explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution allows me to be denied this right, if I choose to go into a business that involves creating expressive artistic works (such as custom cakes).

Freedom of association, strongly implied in the First Amendment, means I can choose with whom I will or will not associate. Nothing in the Constitution says that I can be denied this right if I choose to run a business.

As originally enacted and applied, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could stand the test of “strict scrutiny”, which ought always to be required when an explicit Constitutional right is at stake. As you're trying to apply it now, it doesn't come anywhere close.

 

[Skylar]

You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business. Deal with it.

Where, in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is government authorized to compel a citizen to waive any of his Constitutional rights—including freedoms of religion, expression, conscience, and association—as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living?

And who said that a citizen is compelled to waive his constitutional right?

Freedom of expression, (which necessarily means freedom not to express that which I find disagreeable), explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution allows me to be denied this right, if I choose to go into a business that involves creating expressive artistic works (such as custom cakes).

And who said that a citizen is compelled to waive his constitutional right?

PA laws have long since been established as constitutional. As the regulation of intrastate commerce is an undisputed power of the States. And there's no question that selling cakes to the public is commerce. So who are you quoting?

Again, Bob......you're citing yourself. Insisting that if YOU believe a constitutional right has been violated, it has been. But you're nobody. And your subjective opinion has no legal or constitutional relevance.

So beyond quoting yourself, what have you got? As being Christian doesn't exempt you from general laws, no matter what you believe about Christian Sharia.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business. Deal with it.

If the Westboro Baptist Church wanted a custom cake for one of its evens, decorated with its slogan “GOD HATES FAGS!”, should a baker be compelled to produce that cake,who finds that content or its purpose morally repugnant? What if a Ku Klux Klan organization wants a KKK-themed cake, with images of burning crosses and black people being lynched from trees? Or a neo-Nazi organization wanting a cake that praises Hitler and his “Final Solution”?

Will you apply your statement equally to those, and say that a baker has no right to “discriminate” against those prospective customers?

 

[Skylar]

You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business. Deal with it.

If the Westboro Baptist Church wanted a custom cake for one of its evens, decorated with its slogan “GOD HATES FAGS!”, should a baker be compelled to produce that cake,who finds that content or its purpose morally repugnant? What if a Ku Klux Klan organization wants a KKK-themed cake, with images of burning crosses and black people being lynched from trees? Or a neo-Nazi organization wanting a cake that praises Hitler and his “Final Solution”?

Will you apply your statement equally to those, and say that a baker has no right to “discriminate” against those prospective customers?

What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.

None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. They simply ordered a cake. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws.

Christians don't get to ignore general laws that they don't like. What you're calling for is a religious based Sovereign Citizenship that makes all US law voluntary and subordinate to Christianity.

Um, no. No religion has that authority. As its a wildly stupid idea:

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.

And this from one of the most conservative justices on the bench, Justice Scalia.

Your religious belief does not exempt you from the law. You still have to abide PA laws, you still have to pay taxes, and you're still subject to civil penalties if you violate the minimum codes of conduct for business in your state.

As it should be.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Christians don't get to ignore general laws that they don't like. What you're calling for is a religious based Sovereign Citizenship that makes all US law voluntary and subordinate to Christianity.

The First Amendment is the law—part of the highest law in this nation. All I am calling for is this law to be obeyed. If you don't like it, then try to get your elected misrepresentatives to begin the process of ratifying a new amendment to overturn the First Amendment.

Government doesn't (or at least shouldn't) get to ignore parts of the Constitution that it does not like.

 

[Silhouette]

What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.

None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. They simply ordered a cake. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws...

No, what they ordered was a GAY WEDDING cake. And that's the difference in Jude 1 that is forbidden. An individual gay person or three of them just coming in to order food or a birthday cake isn't promoting the GAY CULTURE into the core of society. "GAY WEDDINGS" ARE promoting that culture into the heart of society. The individual gay a Christian is to reach out to "making a difference". But for the spread of their cult into our culture using the hub of culture itself, marriage, is ABSOLUTELY AND CLEARLY FORBIDDEN to Christians.

So a cake with the knowledge imparted to a Christian that it is to be for a "gay wedding" is where the Christian has "been informed of the intent of the cake" and as such MUST decline or spend an eternity in the fires of hell burning their soul.

And as for the reverse analogy, let's say a KKK group comes into a black baker's shop and tells the baker "I want a cake made for our annual ******-hating ceremony". And when the baker refuses, the KKK has a "right" to sue him. After all, the KKK member has a protected 1st Amendment right to hate whoever he wants. Who is the baker to deny him the cake for that ceremony?

Or let's say Muslim wants to order a cake from a veteran baker with a symbol of the American flag burning for the Muslim's "Damned infidel" celebration that week. Should the veteran be required to ice on top of a cake an image of the flag he fought for and lost limbs for on fire?

 

[Skylar]

What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.

None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. They simply ordered a cake. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws...

No, what they ordered was a GAY WEDDING cake. And that's the difference in Jude 1 that is forbidden.

Except that it isn't. As Jude 1 mentions neither gay weddings or cakes.

. An individual gay person or three of them just coming in to order food or a birthday cake isn't promoting the GAY CULTURE into the core of society. "GAY WEDDINGS" ARE promoting that culture into the heart of society. The individual gay a Christian is to reach out to "making a difference". But for the spread of their cult into our culture using the hub of culture itself, marriage, is ABSOLUTELY AND CLEARLY FORBIDDEN to Christians.

Sil, take a breath. Its just cake. And while cake is pretty amazing, its not quite that amazing.

So a cake with the knowledge imparted to a Christian that it is to be for a "gay wedding" is where the Christian has "been informed of the intent of the cake" and as such MUST decline or spend an eternity in the fires of hell burning their soul.

If baking a cake will condemn your immortal soul to eternal damnation then cake backing probably isn't the best profession for you.

 

[Skylar]

Christians don't get to ignore general laws that they don't like. What you're calling for is a religious based Sovereign Citizenship that makes all US law voluntary and subordinate to Christianity.

The First Amendment is the law—part of the highest law in this nation.

And who says that the 1st amendment was violated?

Sorry, Bob.....but your Begging the Question fallacy isn't a constitutional violation. As your subjective opinion is legally and constitutionally meaningless.

No constitutional violation has ever been found in anything you're discussing. Not PA laws. Not the application of general law to Christians. None of it. Its just you...citing you.

And you're nobody.

All I am calling for is this law to be obeyed.

No, you're calling for Christians to be exempted from any general law that they don't agree with. For Christianity to be placed supreme above all civil law.

No.

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.

And this from one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia.

Christians are subject to general law just like everyone else. They aren't special. They aren't exempt.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

And who says that the 1st amendment was violated?

One of LGBT payroll blogger(s?) Skylar & mdk's favorite tricks is to use time-tense to fool. "Who says" (present tense) or "who said" (past tense) knowing this thread weighs heavily on potential future-tense lawsuits' outcomes...like the Klein's or the ones climbing up from Tennessee...

The proper way to frame that question would be "What will be/might be said about the 1st Amendment being violated?" Because as Skylar well knows, the question can't be answered in the present or past tense since the case is currently still pending appeals & inevitably, a Decision...

For example, I would more accurately ask, "how will the fact that 90% of all people believing a mother and father are important to a child, across every political spectrum, affect how the Justices might rule on looming challenges to Obergefell massing up as we speak?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

"Who says" (present tense) or "who said" (past tense) knowing this thread weighs heavily on potential future-tense lawsuits' outcomes...

Sil, your threads, this one or the dozens and dozens of others will have zero, null, nada, zippo, impact on any lawsuit pertaining ti same-sex couples being able to Civilly Marry, whether same-sex couples can adopt, or whether they can be included in Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

 

[mdk]

And who says that the 1st amendment was violated?

One of LGBT payroll blogger(s?) Skylar & mdk's favorite tricks is to use time-tense to fool. "Who says" (present tense) or "who said" (past tense) knowing this thread weighs heavily on potential future-tense lawsuits' outcomes...like the Klein's or the ones climbing up from Tennessee...

The proper way to frame that question would be "What will be/might be said about the 1st Amendment being violated?" Because as Skylar well knows, the question can't be answered in the present or past tense since the case is currently still pending appeals & inevitably, a Decision...

For example, I would more accurately ask, "how will the fact that 90% of all people believing a mother and father are important to a child, across every political spectrum, affect how the Justices might rule on looming challenges to Obergefell massing up as we speak?"

Yes, I am sure the Justices will use this thread as evidence as soon as they finishing reading The Prince's Trust. lol

Also, I am not paid to post here. Watching you twist in the wind and attempt to remain relevant is its own reward.

 

[bodecea]

What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.

None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. They simply ordered a cake. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws...

No, what they ordered was a GAY WEDDING cake. And that's the difference in Jude 1 that is forbidden. An individual gay person or three of them just coming in to order food or a birthday cake isn't promoting the GAY CULTURE into the core of society. "GAY WEDDINGS" ARE promoting that culture into the heart of society. The individual gay a Christian is to reach out to "making a difference". But for the spread of their cult into our culture using the hub of culture itself, marriage, is ABSOLUTELY AND CLEARLY FORBIDDEN to Christians.

So a cake with the knowledge imparted to a Christian that it is to be for a "gay wedding" is where the Christian has "been informed of the intent of the cake" and as such MUST decline or spend an eternity in the fires of hell burning their soul.

And as for the reverse analogy, let's say a KKK group comes into a black baker's shop and tells the baker "I want a cake made for our annual ******-hating ceremony". And when the baker refuses, the KKK has a "right" to sue him. After all, the KKK member has a protected 1st Amendment right to hate whoever he wants. Who is the baker to deny him the cake for that ceremony?

Or let's say Muslim wants to order a cake from a veteran baker with a symbol of the American flag burning for the Muslim's "Damned infidel" celebration that week. Should the veteran be required to ice on top of a cake an image of the flag he fought for and lost limbs for on fire?

They ordered a cake. The owner's husband found out the cake was for a gay wedding and refused them service.

It's not about what's on the cake....that's a speech issue. It's simply making a cake....and the husband being a jack ass.

 

[Skylar]

And who says that the 1st amendment was violated?

One of LGBT payroll blogger(s?) Skylar & mdk's favorite tricks is to use time-tense to fool. "Who says" (present tense) or "who said" (past tense) knowing this thread weighs heavily on potential future-tense lawsuits' outcomes...like the Klein's or the ones climbing up from Tennessee...

Another conspiracy? Didn't you learn your lesson with your spectacular failures with the 'Gays control the pope' and 'Gallup was infiltrated by homosexuals' batshit?

And the Supreme Court has denied cert on *every* of the faux 'religious liberty' cases surrounding gay marriage. There's zero indication that the Supreme Court has the slightest interest in the Klein's case. Every time someone has been found guilty of violating state PA laws in denying services to gays or lesbians.....the SCOTUS has denied cert.

The proper way to frame that question would be "What will be/might be said about the 1st Amendment being violated?" Because as Skylar well knows, the question can't be answered in the present or past tense since the case is currently still pending appeals & inevitably, a Decision...

Remember 'Elaine's Photography' where the owners refused to take pictures at a gay wedding? She lost all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court which found no violation of her 1st amendment rights. With the SCOTUS denying cert.

"Masterpiece Bakery" in Colorado made the same claim. They lost all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court with no violation of the owners 1st amendment rights. The SCOTUS denied cert there too.

Remember Kim Davis, the county clerk that refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. She lost all the way to the federal courts with no violation of her 1st amendment rights ever found. The SCOTUS denied Kim Davis' petition for cert too.

But this time, after 3 explicit rejections of your predictions, the SCOTUS is going to not only grant cert, but rule in your favor?

Laughing...Sil, this is why your every legal prediction has been failure. Not one of your predictions has ever been accurate. And with the SCOTUS denying cert *every* time this issue has been before them, you insist that you *know* what they're going to do?

Um, you never have before. Your record of failure in predicting the USSC is perfect. As you well know. And now so does everyone else.

 

[Katzndogz]

We need better supreme Court justices.

 

[Skylar]

We need better supreme Court justices.

With Scalia's replacement, we will.

 

[mdk]

Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption

A unanimous decision from the court.

 

[Skylar]

Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption

A unanimous decision from the court.

Unanimous.

Damn. Apparently they've never read the Prince's Trust study.

Laughing.......right, Sil?

 

[Katzndogz]

We need better supreme Court justices.

With Scalia's replacement, we will.

We need to replace Ginsberg and the two lezzies, Kagan and Sotomayor.

Normalcy should by the number one qualification.

 

[mdk]

Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption

A unanimous decision from the court.

Unanimous.

Damn. Apparently they've never read the Prince's Trust study.

Laughing.......right, Sil?

Roberts, Alito, and, Thomas must be members of the LGBT cult that Sil keeps gassing on about. lol

 

[Skylar]

We need better supreme Court justices.

With Scalia's replacement, we will.

We need to replace Ginsberg and the two lezzies, Kagan and Sotomayor.

Normalcy should by the number one qualification.

So no left handed judges?